that’s the point he’s trying to make (I think), this rule comes with its share of interpretation, and it’s impossible to define clearly what is divisive and disruptive and what is not (and this will vary across people as well). But we can still keep the rule and interpret it as rational human beings. This may come with some controversies when applying the rules, which is acceptable and to be accepted. Not everything can be black or white.
If we throw out the rule all together, there will still be controversies when people go too far (someone mentioned holding a nazi flag…).
Ironman (and World Tri btw) do not try to define “divisive and disruptive” - that’s not the rule.
World Tri Rule 2.1(a) (x) Avoid displaying any kind of demonstration of political, religious or racial propaganda;
Ironman 2.01(f) . . . (f) . . . avoid any type of demonstration of political, religious, or racial propaganda.
An athlete’s own national flag is fine. Other stuff should be picked up and displayed only after consideration.
In case it’s not painfully obvious: I have zero issue with the content of Hoel’s banner. But a clear message needs to go out from Ironman to reinforce that this is unacceptable/prohibited and risks DQ, just as if <inset name of recent ‘new’ father/mother here> carried their babe over the line.
The interesting thing is that this rule is basically black and white. By IM then deciding what is or isn’t divisive to ruling, they have created controversy.
Maybe my opinion is unpopular but the “Runners Welcome, Walker Tolerated” didn’t seem like a big deal to me. I think those who are balking at this are a tad too sensitive. It’s just a corporate slogan. I think Nike knew it would draw a bit of controversy with those who want everything to be inclusive. And they succeeded. So many people been talking about this. I think Nike chose the correct venue for this sign since it’s hard to qualify for the Boston Marathon. (compared to most marathons).
There is so much to be outraged about these days. The list is endless. But this sign/slogan is not one of them.
The Taylor comment is crappy but it’s just someone’s opinion or comment. She is an amazing athlete and will have her day. Just like Lucy Charles coming in second to Daniela several times before finally winning.
no rule is ever black or white, especially not one which is written like this. What constitutes political propaganda, what doesn’t ? Lawyers are paid millions to answer those types of questions in your court laws every day, and no one seems to agree.
Anyway, I don’t care either way about this rule, I can’t believe I’m still argueing about this !
On another post, I asked if Taylor had crashed because her legs were quite bloody and it looked like she had a gash on the outside of her left knee. That was in a photo published by her sponsor, The Feed. I also saw some footage where she started walking suddenly in an aid station, and again, there was a lot of blood on her legs. It only later occurred to me what was happening.
I haven’t seen her post about it on social media, but it’s now clear that she didn’t crash. She got her period during the race. (UPDATE: I’m wrong in that, seems she has told PTN that it was chafing, so I stand corrected.)
Now, in a publication written entirely by people who have never sustained the monthly loss of the lining of their uterus during an incredibly stressful athletic event (guys), the fact that she powered through to take second is impressive to those of us (women) who have indeed done athletic events during said incident.
So to write about “when will Taylor Knibb win an Ironman” and not inquire of the athlete if indeed she was dealing with menstrual cramps (which could have explained the odd slowing she did on the bike) and blood flow continues the stigma about mentioning women’s completely normal bodily functions.
(ADDITIONAL UPDATE: Somebody asked if the presence of menstrual cramps should be a standard question of any woman who shows up with blood on her kit, and I had to re-think that, too. I guess the answer is no. But if an athlete shows up at the finish line with a lot of blood on them, shouldn’t we be curious enough to ask what’s going on, and that the stigma over mentioning women’s cycles should be sufficiently gone that it’s something we can talk about as normal.)
I guess with a rule like this I would think you would want it as black and white as possible to remove any “opinion” that then will only bring in more judgement. Again if this is allowed, then why isn’t anything else going to be allowed in the future? I don’t think anyone is arguing as much as discussing what is probaly a pretty fair topic to talk on and to of course have different viewpoints on.
This is what I was likening this rule to, the old carry your baby or dog across the line. They got that sorted out pretty much, DQ a couple and the word goes out, and no one wants to ruin their ironman day in the last seconds.
This was an absolutely infringement on the rule, only question is do they use this guy or someone else down the line to enforce it. Unlike Ryan I think it is a good rule, with the caveat that host country flags are exempted. And it has to be a rule, because anyone with a forward looking mind can see what it would open the doors to, so much finish line nonsense that nobody wants.
Unless I wasn’t clear, my feeling was - and remains - “Thats just Nike being stupid. Again”
I don’t think it’s gonna affect Nike sales in one direction or the other. No one currently in NB, asics, Brooks, etc. is going to say “Nike hates Walkers? So do I!!’ I’m changing brands!!!”
I’ve read that it can actually provide a boost in certain training conditions. Although, I doubt there’s any data at Ironman level duration. (Although I recall, but might not be accurately remembering… Laura Philip saying her best races were on her cycle)
I agree there should be no stigma. Especially if there’s some truth that (for some) training and racing with menstrual cycle in mind could actually be positive.
Yeah I don’t think anyone is going to change brands of shoes based on this. Running shoes are so highly personalized that if you have a shoe that fits you well, is comfortable, gives you good running results, you will keep buying this running shoe. I run in Saucony’s. They work for my weird feet. If they come up with some offensive advertising slogan, I am not going to boycott them. Too hard to figure out a new running shoe. I guess if they came out and endorsed Trump and made a bright orange running shoe in his honor….then maybe I might be turned off enough to find another brand. But a running shoe company has to do something pretty bad to make me want to shoe shop elsewhere.
!